Naval warfare in the 21st Century and the advent of Railguns

[Dayton3]

Re: Naval warfare in the 21st Century and the advent of Rail

I thought the Royal Navy was transitioning away from a blue water navy to more coastal defense. Sad indeed if that is the case for a country with such a rich naval history.

Quite the reverse actually, the Royal Navy is in the process of re-equipping itself and transitioning from a North Atlantic focused ASW force back to a proper Blue Water Navy with substantially increased power projection capability and a focus on global expeditionary operations.

This has involved the largest continued British shipbuilding program since WWII - complete with 8 Type 45 Guided Missile Destroyers, 2 Queen Elizabeth class fleet aircraft carriers (one of which will be capable of embarking more aircraft than all 3 Invincible class ships combined), a new class of amphibious assault ships, the new Astute class SSN's and the development of a new generation of SSBN's to carry the UK's nuclear deterent. There is also R&D work being carried out on a possible successor to the UK's fleet of 20 or so Type 22/23 Frigates.

There was some concern when plans were announced by Tony Blair to remove certain portions of the surface fleet from active service in the short term to fund ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but these concerns seem to be unfounded, as Gordon Brown has committed to ordering both the Queen Elizabeth class carriers and all 8 Type 45 Destroyers.

I read recently that the Royal Navy would soon have so few ships that it would not even be able to control waters around the British Isles without American support.

 

[philbob]

Re: Naval warfare in the 21st Century and the advent of Rail

i would say how the mighty have fallen but the US fleet is going to be in dire straights also at the rate were going.... the Chinese have built over 80 heavy ships in the last 4 years in retrospect....

 

[USS KG5]

Re: Naval warfare in the 21st Century and the advent of Rail

I read recently that the Royal Navy would soon have so few ships that it would not even be able to control waters around the British Isles without American support.

The Royal Navy is facing drastic cutbacks in its size - the idea is that older designs like the Type 42 Destroyer will be replaced with ships far more capable in smaller quantities, these capabilities would act as "force multipliers" essentially meaning a Type 45 is worth three Type 42s.

It remains to be seen whether it will pan out - certainly it is based strongly on the theory that the Royal Navy will not have to fight a major conflict alone (like it did in the Falklands) as it will be much less capable of soaking up the attrition like the battered fleet did in the South Atlantic.

Sheer weight of numbers is far from everything in modern warfare, if it were, North Korea would be a superpower.

 

[Trajet]

Re: Naval warfare in the 21st Century and the advent of Rail

I read recently that the Royal Navy would soon have so few ships that it would not even be able to control waters around the British Isles without American support.

The Royal Navy is facing drastic cutbacks in its size - the idea is that older designs like the Type 42 Destroyer will be replaced with ships far more capable in smaller quantities, these capabilities would act as "force multipliers" essentially meaning a Type 45 is worth three Type 42s.

The cutbacks aren't exactly drastic when compared to those imposed upon the fleet in the 1960's and 1970's, a period when the British surface fleet contracted from almost 300 units to slightly more than 100. Replacing a class of 12 outdated 1970's vintage Destroyers with 8 state of the art designs doesn't really represent that much of a scaling back of numbers, and in terms of capability, a single Type 45 carries more offensive firepower, and is capable of tracking and engaging more air targets simultaneously than the entire Type 42 fleet.

The fleet currently stands at a total force level of 91 vessels, 25 of which are major combat units. The largest issue facing the Royal Navy right now is that of replacing the Type 22/23 Frigates with a newer, more capable design. The Type 23's in particular might be relatively young ships (the first of the class being commissioned in 1989 or so), but they're simply too small, too lightly armed and not versatile enough to carry out the ever more complicated and demanding missions British foreign policy deems necessary.

On the subject of Britain having so few ships it would be unable to effectively control even its own territorial waters, this was based on reports that surfaced in late 2006 suggesting that portions of the fleet would be removed from active service in order to free up money to fund ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. As far as I know, those plans have not come to fruition, and may have been nothing more than ill-informed speculation. If we were to leave ourselves unable to control even our own territory, what would be the point in spending £4 billion on constructing two new aircraft carriers, or an estimated £20 billion designing and building a new generation of SSBN's?

It remains to be seen whether or not the proper funding is made available to deliver on the SDR/"Security In A Changing World" minimum requirement that the United Kingdom operates no less than 25-30 major fleet units in the medium-long term. Which begs the question, why has a major power like the United Kingdom allowed its defence spending as a share of GDP to fall to only slightly higher than the European average, and its lowest level since the 1920's, especially in these demanding, internationally unstable times?

 

[Trajet]

Re: Naval warfare in the 21st Century and the advent of Rail

i would say how the mighty have fallen but the US fleet is going to be in dire straights also at the rate were going.... the Chinese have built over 80 heavy ships in the last 4 years in retrospect....

As USS KG5 said, sheer weight of numbers is no longer the be all and end all that it once was. China may be building ships at a vastly accelerated rate the US is simply unable to match in peacetime, but it must be taken into account that China's industrial base is far larger than America's, and that it's building from a much lower baseline.

Also, China, as yet, simply doesn't have the technological skill or expertise to design warships which are seriously capable of approaching the level of sophistication inherent in modern American and British warships.

As an aside, China isn't a democracy, so there's no house of representatives, congress, senate or parliamentary committees to scrutinise and get in the way of the government's naval ambitions.

 

[philbob]

Re: Naval warfare in the 21st Century and the advent of Rail

Be careful not to under estimate them any devloping nation that can build pesduo AEGIS ship should not be taken lightly.... they are nice looking ships also Type 052c if anyone wants to look it up

 

[USS KG5]

Re: Naval warfare in the 21st Century and the advent of Rail

The cutbacks aren't exactly drastic when compared to those imposed upon the fleet in the 1960's and 1970's, a period when the British surface fleet contracted from almost 300 units to slightly more than 100. Replacing a class of 12 outdated 1970's vintage Destroyers with 8 state of the art designs doesn't really represent that much of a scaling back of numbers, and in terms of capability, a single Type 45 carries more offensive firepower, and is capable of tracking and engaging more air targets simultaneously than the entire Type 42 fleet.

True the cutbacks are nothing compared to the 60s/70s agreed - cutbacks so drastic and short sighted that as well as losing ships the Navy no longer needed the aircraft carrier was considered surplus to requirements!

Hopefully all eight type 45s will be built - I have a feeling that a new ASW Frigate is probably some way off - another expensive high profile defense procurement might be a little too much for parliament right now.

 

[Trajet]

Re: Naval warfare in the 21st Century and the advent of Rail

I have a feeling that a new ASW Frigate is probably some way off - another expensive high profile defense procurement might be a little too much for parliament right now.

I have a feeling you're probably right. Another £10 billion+ round of defence development spending on what some pacifists in government deem to be unnecessary offensive weapons is probably far more than Parliament can swallow, especially coming in the wake of the sums of money thrown at combined defence procurement over the past 5-10 years - Eurofighter Typhoon, CVF, Type 45, Astute Class etc etc. They seem to want to play the "major power" defence game while spending the absolute minimum required to do so. It's a shame modern politicians can't understand the correlation between spending and capability.

Bring back Thatcher - she'd tell Parliament's moaning minnies to shut their collective cakeholes and deal with it!